That is exactly what I have been doing for nearly five years. So have others.
I can see why the public is confused, but I do not agree that @Perry_Marshall is following the common usage of “random.” Instead, he is using the anti-evolution version of the term, which tries to link evolutionary science with Epicureanism and ontological randomness.
In common usage “random” events are unpredictable or unexpected events. Instead of denying that they can be purposeful, we commonly call them “acts of God” or “providential.” We even use “random” to describe clearly purposeful actions (such as the decision to accept or reject an applicant in a competitive situation). There is Scripture that talks about the casts of lots as a place where God makes his purposes known. Even in non-Christian contexts, “luck” or “karma” are used to explain that purposes are being worked out in “random events”. All of this is entirely consistent with (though not part of) the scientific meaning, which is merely saying we can’t entirely predict most events.
Now, there is a long history of treating “random” in evolution as a uniquely insidious challenge to theology because…well, we have no explanation why. Yet, generation after generation of anti-evolutionist has beat that drum, saying that “random is without divine purpose” even though they might call all the “random” events in their own life “providential.” So yes, I do understand why the public is confused, but I disagree with your diagnosis on why they are confused. It is not my fault that anti-evolutionists are self-contradictory and selective in their objections. Somehow, only when mentioned with respect to evolution, “random” must mean ontological randomness, rather than the common meaning of the word which matches the scientific meaning: not fully predictable.
Given my understanding of this situation, I find the EES approach to be increasing the problem rather than fixing it. It doesn’t make sense either in science or in common language. Christians concerned about the word “random” would benefit immensely from learning about the theology and Scripture of providence. With this in mind, there is no valid objection to the term, unless science insists on ontological randomness (which it does not).
“Copying errors” is not neutral enough for me of an explanation. It is a common way to describe mutations, but it is only an analogy. The analogy breads down. I’d rather say that “there many types of mutations and they cause different types of variation to arise.” Perhaps some people call them “copy errors” but it is very easy to find places where that analogy breaks down.
It is a code merely by analogy. We can list out reasons why it is a code. We can also list out reasons why it is not a code. The analogy breaks down. If they haven’t explained the ways the genetic code is not like a code, they have left out half the story. Why would you find this acceptable?